Privitello v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
18
DECISION and ORDER that Magistrate Judge Treece's Report-Recommendation, Dkt. No. 17 , is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and ORDERED that the Commissioner's decision denying disability benefits is AFFIRMED, and plaintiff's Complaint, Dkt. No. 1 , is DISMISSED.. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 9/15/2015. (lah) [copy served on pltf by certified return receipt mail]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
________________________________________
SANDRA L. PRIVITELLO,
Plaintiff,
1:14-CV-0295
(GTS/RFT)
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
________________________________________
APPEARANCES:
OF COUNSEL:
SANDRA L. PRIVITELLO
Plaintiff, Pro Se
6 Fairview Street
South Glens Falls, New York 12803
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF REG’L GEN. COUNSEL–REGION II
Counsel for Defendant
26 Federal Plaza, Room 3904
New York, New York 10278
VERNON NORWOOD, ESQ.
Special Assistant U.S. Attorney
GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
Currently before the Court, in this action by Sandra L. Privitello against the
Commissioner of Social Security for disability benefits, is a Report-Recommendation by United
States Magistrate Judge Randolph F. Treece, filed on August 10, 2015, recommending that the
Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings be granted, that the Commissioner’s
decision denying disability benefits be affirmed, and that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed.
(Dkt. No. 17.) Objections to the Report-Recommendation have not been filed and the time in
which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.) After carefully reviewing all of the
papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Treece’s thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court
can find no clear error in the Report-Recommendation.1 The Court would add only that (1) it has
carefully weighed the factors governing a dismissal for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41(b) and finds that they weigh decidedly in favor of dismissal under the circumstances,
and (2) alternatively, it has reviewed the Commissioner’s unopposed motion and finds it to
possess facial merit. (Dkt. No. 16.) For all of these reasons, the Report-Recommendation is
accepted and adopted in its entirety; and Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed in its entirety.
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Treece’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 17) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 16)
is GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that the Commissioner’s decision denying disability benefits is
AFFIRMED; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED.
Dated: September 15, 2015
Syracuse, New York
____________________________________
Hon. Glenn T. Suddaby
Chief, U.S. District Judge
1
When no objection is made to a report-recommendation, the Court subjects that
report-recommendation to only a clear error review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee
Notes: 1983 Addition. When performing such a “clear error” review, “the court need only
satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation.” Id.: see also Batista v. Walker, 94-CV-2826, 1995 WL 453299, at *1
(S.D.N.Y. July 31, 1995) (Sotomayor, J.) (“I am permitted to adopt those sections of [a
magistrate judge’s] report to which no specific objection is made, so long as those sections are
not facially erroneous.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?